DETAILED ACTION
Remarks
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This Office Action is responsive to the amendment field on 06/14/2026. Claims 1, 3-4, 6-7, 9, 11, 17, 19, 21-23, 25-26, 31, and 33-36, of which claims 1, 17, and 23 are independent, were pending in this application and have been considered below.
Applicant canceling claims 2, 16, 18, 20, and 24 and adding new claims 33-36 is acknowledged.
Rejection of claims 2, 16, 18, 20, and 24 is rendered moot in view of their cancellation by the applicant’s amendment.
Response to Arguments---
Applicant’s arguments regarding the rejection of claims filed on 06/14/2026 have been fully considered. The Examiner thoroughly reviewed Applicant’s arguments and noted that the Applicant’s argument is based on the newly amended limitations, which are addressed in a new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action below.
A new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action, which is necessitated by Applicant’s amendment. See MPEP § 706.07(a).
Information Disclosure Statement
The references cited on the information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/11/2026 have been considered and made of record by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 USC § 35 USC § 112, second paragraph
Examiner Note: The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA ) made technical changes to 35 U.S.C. § 112 that only apply to patent applications filed on or after on September 16, 2012.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION - The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 3-4, 6-7, 9, 11, 31, and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention
Regarding claim 1, claim recites the limitation “determining that the network does not support paging the terminal in the subgroup paging manner in response to the base station not broadcasting the configuration information” (line 8-10 of claim 1), which the term “the base station not broadcasting the configuration information” makes it vague and indefinite, because it suggests that the base station broadcast the configuration information. However, the specification merely disclose "the configuration information sent by a base station via a broadcast message is received, or the configuration information sent by a base station via a dedicated message is received" (¶[00173]). It is recommended to replace the limitation with phrase --determining that the network does not support paging the terminal in the subgroup paging manner in response to the base station not sending the configuration information via the broadcast message--.
Regarding claims 3-4, 6-7, 9, 11, 31, and 35, claims are rejected due to their dependency on the rejected claim 1.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 3-4, 6-7, 9, 11, 31, 35 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), set forth in this Office action.
Claims 17, 19, 21-23, 25-26, 33-34, and 36 are allowed.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Conclusion
The attention of the applicant is drawn to the fact that the application may not be amended in such a way that it contains subject matter which extends beyond the content of the application as originally filed. In order to facilitate the examination of the conformity of the amended application, the applicant is respectfully requested to clearly identify the amendments carried out, irrespective of whether they concern amendments by addition, replacement or deletion, and to indicate the passages of the application as filed on which these amendments are based.
Reliance on the US Pre-Grant Publication (PG PUB) of this application, which is not part of the image file wrapper of the patent application, in the prosecution is improper. All references in the reply to the office action are to be made to the latest version on record of the patent application as filed not as published. The latest version on record of the patent application means the patent application as originally filed and modified by previously entered amendment(s).
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. Ryu et al. (US 2021/0092707 A1) is equivalent to the IDS cited Foreign application No. WO 2020/198733 A1; Tseng et al. (US 2023/0108646 A1) is equivalent to the IDS cited Foreign application No. WO 2021/180206 A1
Applicants’ amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicants are reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nader Bolourchi whose telephone number is (571) 272-8064. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30 to 4:30.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Hannah S. Wang, SPE can be reached on (571) 272-9018. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Interviews are available via telephone and video conferencing using a USPTO web-based Video Conferencing and Collaboration Tool. To schedule an interview, Applicants are encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
Communications via Internet e-mail are at the discretion of the applicant. See MPEP § 502.03. Without a written authorization by applicant in place, the USPTO will not respond via Internet e-mail to any Internet correspondence which contains information subject to the confidentiality requirement as set forth in 35 U.S.C. 122 and will not initiate communications with applicants via Internet e-mail. The internet authorization must be submitted on a separate paper to be entitled to acceptance in accordance with 37 CFR 1.4(c). The separate paper will facilitate processing and avoid confusion. The written authorization may be submitted via EFS-Web, mail, or fax. It cannot be submitted by email.
The following is a sample authorization form, which may be used by applicant:
“Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with the undersigned and practitioners in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33 and 37 CFR 1.34 concerning any subject matter of this application by video conferencing, instant messaging, or electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.”
A written authorization may be withdrawn by filing a signed paper clearly identifying the original authorization. The following is a sample form which may be used by applicants to withdraw the authorization:
“The authorization given on______, to the USPTO to communicate with any practitioner of record or acting in a representative capacity in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33 and 37 CFR 1.34 concerning any subject matter of this application via video conferencing, instant messaging, or electronic mail is hereby withdrawn.”
To facilitate processing of the internet communication authorization or withdraw of authorization, the Office strongly encourages use of Form PTO/SB/439, filed via EFS-Web. The Form is available at:
https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0439.pdf.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at (866) 217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (in USA, or CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Nader Bolourchi/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2631
Prosecution Insights